House Republicans Release Flood Insurance Relief Bill

More Questions – No Answers >>> The further this goes the worse it gets.
Not only is there :
– No Comprehensive Definitive Financial Analysis of NFIP,
– No Complete Analysis of 33% to 66% Insurance commissions and Management fees (1),
– No Verification that NFIP didn’t rebuild houses behind Levees (i.e. in New Orleans), in addition:
Consumer Federation of America – Bob Hunter Director of Insurance (opposes delay (2)), but says,
– Problems in Hancock Co. Mississippi (and maybe other areas?) were due to Government set Flood Levels being 10’ to low,
– Agrees that Insurance Commissions and Fees should be greatly reduced (but BW-12 doesn’t do it), and
NBC Universal Investigative Reporter – Bill Dedman finds (2):
– Recent flood elevation changes has reduced Flood Elevations for many expensive Residential and Condominium Properties,
– FEMA asks for local concurrence from the flood-plain administrator, but often does not take into consideration why the local administrator opposes the change,
– FEMA is relying on data submitted by engineers who have never been in the state where the property is located,
– The mapping side of FEMA does not get information from the insurance claims side, so it’s not aware when it’s re-mapping Repetitive Loss Properties; and further, it seems that:
– No one knows about Sea Level Rise planning requirements of BW-12,
– Nor has anyone considered the effect of BW-12 increasing Private Insurance placement and taking the lowest risk properties out of the program.
Perhaps a thorough investigation of FEMA and the NFIP should be done, before NFIP Policyholders, who have played by the rules, are forced out of their homes by excessive Flood Insurance Premiums to pay unseasonable Insurance Co. Commissions and Management Fees, for rebuilding Un-Insured homes (if done), and unknown ASLR planning policy.
BW-12 should be delayed until proper information has been presented and considered.
Bill Price USLandAlliance.US
(1) Rep. Coble’s office (R) NC presented combined WYO Commissions and Fee Information. We are still looking for Breakdown of WYO and all Standard .
(2) While CFA opposes Delay of BW-12, Mr. Hunter recognizes there are other problems with NFIP than BW-12 does not address.
(3) http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/meet-flood-insurance-robin-hood-who-saves-condo-owners-millions-n26711

Keven,
Unfortunately, BW-12 requires even higher level planning for (theoretical) acceleration of Sea Level Rise (SLR).
Based on EPA, NOAA, USGS 2009 agreement, that will be 39″/ 2100.
Everyone agrees that:
– Climate has been changing forever,
– Sea Level has been very slowly rising since last glaciation,
– IF SLR will definitely accelerate, we need to know and plan for it.
NOAA is spending hundred$ of million$ buying reports to show Global Warming is increasing, and SLR will Accelerate…
but so far, Global Warming is stalled, and Sea Level Rise isn’t accelerating, (and previous NOAA Temperature Records of warming have been shown to be “unreliable”.)
Federal policy forcing taxpaying property owners out of their homes, based on un-proven manipulated Computerized Theories is pretty discouraging .
Bill Price USLandAlliance.US

Just like Republicans to stick the rest of us with the cost of maintaining flood insurance on the multimillion dollar coastal homes only the wealthy can afford. Republicans want fiscal responsibility ONLY when will not affect the wealthy.

Mikey,
It seems the problem may be that Republicans and Democrats are confused on the issue because they have not gotten comprehensive information from the agencies.
It’s difficult to make good public policy when you don’t have all the facts.
Bill Price USLandAlliance.US

Mikey…just pray FEMA does not come to your town and decide with the stroke of their pen to include your home into their web. In 2009 FEMA decided to ‘remap’ our city…they scooped up 8,900 additional homes that, according to FEMA’s own flood maps, formerly were NEVER in a ‘high risk’ flood zone. These are not multimillion dollar homes on the Coast…they are modest Central Valley homes. Ironically, area residents currently are praying for rain due to several years of extreme drought…visit this valley and you will see the farmers’ signs all along the roadways…”Pray for Rain!”…”No Water, no Food!”, yet here we are contemplating how the heck we are going to pay ‘flood’ insurance premiums possibly 10 times what they were just last year. Government in action Mikey…didn’t buy my home in 2004 within a flood zone but five years later, overnight my home value plummeted with the stroke of their pen. Start praying Mikey that FEMA doesn’t remap your city and all of a sudden you find your home suddenly designated within a ‘high risk’ flood zone!

I keep wondering, will everyone in CA have to pay for earthquake insurance after the “big one” hits? Which is much more likely to happen in California than a flood. Why doesn’t FEMA start collecting a minimal sum from EVERYONE in the US, for whatever natural disaster which will likely happen somewhere?!

I have a modest 1200 sq ft home that backs up to a green-belt – a small creek normally dry except in rainy weather/flash floods. My home has NEVER flooded in 37 years. I’m punished 2-fold, my neighborhood has otherwise appreciated greatly so my property taxes are increasing. I’m trying to do the responsible thing – sell & move to a home/neighborhood I can afford, but these increased rates (triple) have already scared off 1 buyer we had under contract. I’m afraid I won’t be able to sell – not sure what we’re going to do. I hope this legislation passes.

What I do find kind of amusing is the the “wealty” in our flood prone areas are buying brand new construction waterfront homes that are elevated and have proper flood venting so none of these increases really hurt at all. It is the low income and smaller homes that are being drastically hit by these flood changes. I love the part where they address the 400 members who voted for this being a concern and yet now we all know that most of those who voted for BW12 didn’t read it before they voted. BW12 doesn’t fix the problem.

One would think because there is a subsidy, there is a problem. Flood Insurance has been around since the 1970s and only two major catastrophys ran up a 27 Billion loss. The majority of claims since inception are for riverine areas, not coastal! Has anyone looked at the annual deficit on farm subsidies or looked at the expenses paid by the Corp of Army Engineers to maintain levees at everyones expense. The targeting of second homeowners as wealthy homeowners who can afford to pay is politically correct but not part of the American dream . Some of us invested in second homes and rental properties and if in a flood zone expected to pay a premium for insurance but lumping second homes with homes with frequent flood losses is not fair. Further excepting primary home owners. despite numerous claims, from being penalized also is notfair. Fema is supposed to oversee insurance but social modification.
True insurance would have a mechanism to raise rates for all in flood zones based on the structure at risk, not the ownership. AND have a rating factor for multiple losses
In the Northeast areas affected by Sandy the pitiful amount included for mitigation on policies is about 1/3 of the actual costs of raising a home. If the actuaries at FEMA were astute enough to rate this mitigation cost accurately ,additional amounts of “real INSURANCE” should be permitted to be included. This would allow all property owners the opportunity to purchase higher amounts of mitigation coverage, reducing future loss expectancy and reducing the deficit overtime. This is certainly fairer than the current flood premiums which are based on social economic perceptions. If flood insurance is a good idea and it is, it should be rated on the structures insured and their location, not the ownership being principle or secondary. Mother nature doesn’t discriminate as much as FEMA! The political posturing between our elected officials just adds to the problem. If people paying for insurance is a more desirable method of setting aside money for disaster than outright Federal grants or tax write offs after the disaster the rates need to be actuarially sound and they are not !Why cant our politicians see this and make some meaningful reforms to the FEMA program.?